I mean really? I didn't have high expectations anyway but this is hardly a step above garbage. This is what blew box office records. Wow.
shareI didn't think it was bad. I thought it was decent, better than the atrocious BvS, but not better than MoS. MoS had a better villain and better fight scenes. MoS is still the best DCEU movie to this day imo.
shareLoads better than BvS, and slightly better than MoS.
shareI think it was better than all the other DCCU movies so far, but that's not saying much. IMO, it had good characters, a solid story, and great action.
shareThat's cool guys. Glad to see it at least has a fan base. didn't mean to be so harsh, but i wad a little off put with the tone. I liked BVS myself- the extended edition is SO much better than than the theatrical. But this one kind of lacks the dark atmosphere Snyder put into the first two. I prefer Snyder storytelling (300, watchmen), this was really boring to me, the constant slow-mo CGI Dianna Everytime she faught was too much for me
shareI think is was a wonderful film, enjoyable and even touching, a thousand times better than the boring MoS or incoherent BvS.
Yes, I'm a Marvel fan in general.
It takes the safe route. Masterpieces are not made from the safe side of the tracks, but usually bombs are not either. What it does, it does well. And, as Marvel has taught us, this strategy for comic' adaptions brings in the greens and fresh tomatoes. I think it is that simple.
In my opinion MOS and BvS are on the other side of the track. They take chances, they dare to develop and push and to think outside of the box. And this is a dangerous strategy. I think MOS is perhaps the best Superhero movie ever, and I loved BvS (directors cut especially) but I also understand why many seem to dislike them. Difference in opinions is a good thing. The thing is though, too many movies from the safe side of the track does not bring much funk to our everyday lives.
A reason why I appreciate both Marvel and DC is that they are so different; they deliver us movies from both sides of the track. They together satisfy me. Sometimes I like the safer bet, and sometimes I like the riskier bet.
In short, no WW is not the better movie. It is the safer movie. And the majority, by definition, prefer the safer ones.
Brilliant post. Thumbs up!
shareCan I ask you to explain why you consider MoS be so wonderful?
I didn't like it one bit, as you might gather from my post above. But your post was so well-written that your POV might be interesting, not that you have any hope of getting me to like the movie or anything.
I am a fan of Superman ever since I was a wee kid. This means I have followed him in all his many forms from his classic and generally understood persona, to the more colourfull and flawed iterations later on. Since the much-bellowed Christopher Reeves (and by me too) he has changed many times over and is not so boy scouty as it seems many think he is. And frankly, this is important to show. He is interesting still because he (like pretty much all other characters) has evolved much since we first saw him back in 1938. In truth even Reeves was a bit dated version back in 78.
So, when I saw for example “Superman Returns” I was first very happy as it brought back my beloved Reeves version, but later I came to the realization that this was a fail. We already had Reeves, and we still do. And to be fair to the character; a great movie version ought to show how he is in the present literature and in a more contemporary view.
Much about this character does just not work very well. As a fan, I am allowed to say that :-) On the pages we can easily suspend our disbelieve, but on the silver screens this is much harder to do and so a huge challenge to make him work.
MOS gave me what I had been waiting for. It gave me a spin that was different and that was more in line with the character ark, imo. It showed me a man before a god. It showed me flaws, it showed me struggles… christ, one of the biggest critiques of him is that he is so unrelatable. Clark in MOS is really not that different from many of us, and this I think is a tremendous win for the story tellers. How is it even possible to tell the story of Superman in a relatable way? I think they succeeded to a degree here. And I like that.
It truly showed us how he became a Superman. It was an origin story at its core. It showed us his struggles to fit in. It showed us why he is against killing. It showed us where his suit came from (not knitted by Ma Kent). It showed us a believable version of his Fortress of Solitude. It showed us how he flies. It showed us why he understand the meaning of sacrificing oneself. It showed us a villain of monumental size. It showed us magnificent action scenes that for once could have been verbatim to the pages of a comic book. It showed us a final battle that needed Superman as much as it needed humans to unite. It showed us how Lois is not fooled by mere glasses. It showed us no underwear :-). The dielemma between his two dads was brilliant. His Jor-El wanted him to become a God. His Jonathan wanted him to find himself first… in the end his path was something in-between… I think it just worked.
And this is not to mention that until MOS we had never really seen Superman fight, at least not in a super way. Think about “Superman Returns”, here he has zero punches. Zero. That is wild for a comic book character which uses his fist more than the average fantast.
Perhaps it would be easier for me to explain why I liked it, by replying to points you disliked?
What do you have? :)
PS: For the record, my favorite super-comics characters in order are: Superman, HULK, Spiderman, Batman, Wolverine, F4, Xmen and Flash.. and then the rest.. DC or Marvel, hmmm a tad more to the DC’s style. But love both. Depends on my mood.
I thought it might be interesting to ask you about these films, and I was right! Thanks! Now as to why I disliked "MoS", let me say that aside from Superman, I found it gray, dull, and no fun. That's it, really, I could go on for paragraphs, but if I can sum up my feelings about the movie in two words, I'll just go with "no fun".
But as to the characterization of Superman himself, my opinion is the opposite of yours - I thought "Man of Steel" played it safe, and "Superman" was daring and original!
Because when making superhero movies for adults, IMHO giving a superhero flaws and a dark side and humanizing him is iMHO the *easy* way to make him work for the screen. That's how Marvel made Captain America work for modern audiences, and crazy Batman after crazy Batman, and that's what they did in "Man of Steel". But it's what they deliberately didn't do in "Superman", it was made for cynical audiences during the era of the film antihero, when Superman says he believes in "Truth, justice, and the American way", they meant the audience to react like Lois did - thinking "No WAY, he's got to be kidding! No, he's not kidding, he actually believes that!". Presenting a character who is good and decent but not immature or naïve is incredibly rare in film, actors hate having no dark side to give their characters depth, writers and directors can't think of ways to make such people believable, and about the only other example I can think of is John Glenn in "The Right Stuff" and "Wonder Woman" herself. A hero who is good in an uncomplicated way is very difficult to do, it worked in the recent "Wonder Woman", but they took the easy way out in "Man of Steel".
I don't suppose I'll really ever get over the Superman of "Superman" and "Superman II". He's everything that human beings fail to be, That makes him iconic, while the one in "Man of Steel" is not.
Very interesting reply and chain of thoughts. Thank you for sharing. Well, first of all we all have different opinions and thank goodness for that. That you find it dull or no fun is your opinion. I would agree that the sort of noir feeling it has is a way away from for example the Reeve’s films, and in this light I can certainly understand why you would see MOS as such. I did not. I was awed and emotionally entertained. And for a comic book adaption it delivered tremendously in terms of action and incredible fight scenes etc. (still unparalleled on the silver screens, imo) so to me this alone is a far cry from anything categorized as no-fun. But as I say, each to our opinions and I applaud that.
I see your point of view. In a long line of realistic spins as those we saw in Nolan’s and even Ang Lee’s etc it is not thinking outside of the box. Fair point you make. I will though say, that the Reeve’s way was tried in “Superman Returns” and with all respect to this project, it failed and so I (and I think along with the world at that time) was crying for something else… as in; give us a more contemporary spin on Superman. I am totally with you: I too adores Superman I and II (and I equally like superman III btw, his internal battle at the junkyard for example is great, I think)… but as I said; we already have those and like the comics, let us see something different this time… and so the MOS we got, was something I had waited for all my life in a sense. I was blown away. To make him “realistic”, “raletable” and to finally show us a real-life version of the comic version (in terms of effects, fighting, muscular looks etc) was just wauuu, and great kudos to the movie-makers for succeeding with this vision.
Anyway, interesting to read your view. Different from mine, and yet not…
Yeah, the world would be dreadful if everyone enjoyed the same things, and it's always interesting to hear why people like things I don't. Except golf, of course, there's no accounting for people who like golf.
Just one more point - the existence of "Superman Returns" does illustrate one of my point, the one about the difficulty of carrying off a hero with no dark side. Well, I will always have "Superman", "Superman II", and "Wonder Woman", wherein Patty Jenkins pulled off what Bryan Singer could not.
I agree... It's very much Snyder's attempt at bringing his own artistic sensibility to the movies he makes, even the big bloated ones like these comicbook movies... Nolan, Burton and Ang Lee did this to a certain extent as well...
It makes all of the other ones look like they were made by committee, or that they came off of some assembly line...
We should be urging Snyder and these directors to go further away from the average, not to be reigned in...
Yes we should. But the world cries differently... or is it just those who cry the loudest? Anyway, it seem JL is steps towards the safe side of the tracks... as mush as I loved it, I cannot help but feel we were cheated a bit from how Snyder had it all in mind. So alas, they are reigned in it seems....
shareGood post there, Hal.
shareBteer than both but still not great. idk why it gets all they hype.